Boycotts & Sanctions

[Borachio]

How would it be if UK citizens started building houses on US soil without permission? It seems an absurd idea, doesn't it?

I'm not sure the US would wait for the UK government to do anything about it.

 

[Flying Pig]

The analogy would only hold, I think, if said US soil only came about in the first place because the Americans occupied Exmoor, claiming that their ancestors came from Devon, so they had a right to live there.

 

[Borachio]

Eh? I can't get my head round that. In my book, the UK would equal Israel, and the US Palestinian territory.

Are you saying the Palestinians have occupied the parts of Israel that the settlers are settling on? Because that's not my understanding of the situation.

 

[Tahuti]

You seem to be under the impression that the settlers represent the only group in Israel which is trying to sabotage any sort of peace settlement when that is clearly not the case. Those who wish to continue to do so are even in control of the government, and they have been for quite some time now.

It is much like white supremacy in South Africa. While they represented a sizable minority they depended on enough other whites going along with their practices. It wasn't until the majority of whites had had enough that things finally changed. Boycotts were a fundamental aspect of why this eventually occurred.

It is also why so many Israelis are so adamantly opposed to them. They know how effective this pressure really is. Israel is becoming more and more isolated from the rest of the world, just like what occurred in South Africa.

It is also the reason why so many Israelis don't trust Barack Obama. They know how crucial it is to continue to have presidents in office who unilaterally support whatever atrocities they may commit next. They know Obama has his limits.

Here are a few errors of your reasoning.

Israel is not South Africa: Pretty much every major wrongdoing by Israel is acknowledged by its own justice system, like it should with every democratic state that abides by the rule of law. Israeli leaders have been impeached for committing crimes while in office. South African apartheid however was pretty close to totalitarianism in that every aspect of the state, justice system included, was made to serve apartheid.

Furthermore, diplomatic isolation are not indicative of a nation's moral standing. Several of the nations involved in the diplomatic isolation of Israel, Saudi Arabia for example, are hardly targeted by any sanctions, yet is arguably pretty much the worst of the worst of any country in the world in terms of human rights. Note that it doesn't justify any wrongdoing by Israel, but worth mentioning nevertheless.

The majority of Israelis already support a two-state solution and so do most mainstream Israeli parties, including even Likud-Yisroel Beitanu. If the main function of boycotts are to change Israelis their mind, it largely unnecessary anyway.

You left my points about the possibility of the boycott having averse effects unaddressed. Namely, the possibility of a more pro-war attitude among the Israeli populace instead. Finally, US-Israeli relations aren't really the holy cow of Israeli politics as you imagine, given the tons of diplomatic incidents between Israel and the US and the past. The Israeli ultra-right (i.e. the most hard-core within the settlers) actually support cessation of accepting any further American aid. And Israel has offered China tons of lucrative arms deals.

How would it be if UK citizens started building houses on US soil without permission? It seems an absurd idea, doesn't it?

I'm not sure the US would wait for the UK government to do anything about it.

Libertarians...

 

[Mouthwash]

You overstate it, imo. Banks refused to allow publication of his books in Israel. It was just a token gesture, I think. There's absolutely nothing to prevent any Israeli reading his books. I imagine that when you, personally, go into a book shop you're practically having to break your neck refusing to even look at his books.

You've said (or certainly implied) yourself that you're only not reading Banks because of his refusal to allow publication in Israel.

Biting your nose off to spite your face, much?

I'm not boycotting him to accomplish some goal. I just can't stand the thought of reading him.

As for "no good reason", he does give his reasons in the link I supplied above. edit: Here it is.

Read it already. Pure nonsense. If BDS targets only the state and not people, then this certainly doesn't. I really don't care what a given author's political inclinations are- right-wing, communist, libertarian- but denying a particular country's people the right to read your books because the of that state's policies is collective punishment. The fact that he wouldn't let his books be sold in Saudi Arabia is every bit as contemptible.

And Alice Walker does the same. You remember her, surely! The Color Purple.

I actually only first heard of her when she boycotted Israel. Do you think I have a higher opinion of her than Banks?

I liked Tabletmag's commentary. They can lean both left and right, but they're always interesting and rational.

 

[Flying Pig]

Eh? I can't get my head round that. In my book, the UK would equal Israel, and the US Palestinian territory.

Are you saying the Palestinians have occupied the parts of Israel that the settlers are settling on? Because that's not my understanding of the situation.

I mangled that one a bit. The point is that the soil is (to the Israelis) Israeli, by virtue of their distant ancestors having lived there, so neither side agrees that it's invading the other and both think that they're having their land stolen.

 

[Mouthwash]

I mangled that one a bit. The point is that the soil is (to the Israelis) Israeli, by virtue of their distant ancestors having lived there, so neither side agrees that it's invading the other and both think that they're having their land stolen.

I don't think it's quite that simple, although I'm not one to defend the settlements.

 

[Cutlass]

Yes, that's the problem. I've got to say that it's remarkably Machiavellian to try to pressurise a government by squeezing the ordinary people and hoping that those in charge crack before they do.

The problem being, that the alternatives are to do nothing, or war. So not a lot of options on the table.

 

[Tahuti]

The problem being, that the alternatives are to do nothing, or war. So not a lot of options on the table.

What if boycotts do not work either? Often, fixing a bad regime involves something as simple as cutting aid. Plenty of African dictators learned that the hard way when the USSR crumbled or the US decided they outlived their usefulness at the conclusion of the cold war.

 

[Mouthwash]

The problem being, that the alternatives are to do nothing, or war. So not a lot of options on the table.

That's what we mean when we say "the ends justify the means." I actually would have supported some sort of international effort to topple the apartheid regime, rather than plunging the country into poverty and isolating it "culturally" from the outside world.

Go ask North Korea if they're ready to open up the ballot boxes.

 

[Borachio]

I liked Tabletmag's commentary. They can lean both left and right, but they're always interesting and rational.

Interesting link.

And yet The Color Purple is seriously good. Well, the film of the book was. I confess I've not actually read it. Yet.

 

[Cutlass]

What if boycotts do not work either? Often, fixing a bad regime involves something as simple as cutting aid. Plenty of African dictators learned that the hard way when the USSR crumbled or the US decided they outlived their usefulness at the conclusion of the cold war.

That only works when the regime is dependent on the foreign power. The fall of the USSR didn't remove Castro. It hurt Cuba. But not enough to make the government fall or reform.

 

[Tahuti]

That only works when the regime is dependent on the foreign power. The fall of the USSR didn't remove Castro. It hurt Cuba. But not enough to make the government fall or reform.

True. But economic sanctions didn't help either. America still unconditionally accepts Cuban refugees who manage to land on US partially for that reason. Also note that Cuba is richer than most African countries.

 

[Borachio]

Nigeria exceeds Cuban GDP by a substantial margin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Do you mean per capita GDP?

In which case, South Africa exceeds Cuba.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

 

[Tahuti]

It's per capita GDP, yes. Cuba is overtaken by South Africa and may have been overtaken by Botswana and perhaps several other countries as well, so my bad, even though I was arguing from the perspective of the Cold War, and not necessarily present-day.

 

[Masada]

Also note that Cuba is way richer than any African country.

South Africa is richer in both nominal and PPP per capita terms. So is Botswana, Mauritius, Gabon, Equatorial Guinea and the Seychelles.

EDIT: Beaten. Seriously, the Seychelles and Mauritius are awesome.

 

[classical_hero]

Israel has a habit of boycotting Iranian speeches at the UN.

I wonder how you would react if someone constantly denied your right to exist as person?

 

[Masada]

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[caketastydelish]

boycotts are violent only when applied against Israel but when Israel champions sanctions against Iran hahaha muslims.

You have a way of being sarcastic in an overly obnoxious tone, pretending to support the side you actually hate with a fiery passion so people will feel sorry for the side you support and just don't know what else to say. I could have said that New Zealand is the only country that should be boycotted, but there ya go. Anyway, until Iran has a truly secular government they should be continued to be boycotted as far as I'm concerned.

That doesn't even make sense.

Yes it does. It means they want you dead.

 

[Masada]

You have a way of being sarcastic in an overly obnoxious tone

so you say.

Anyway, until Iran has a truly secular government they should be continued to be boycotted as far as I'm concerned.

haha mouthwash doesn't want a secular state either. he wants a jewish state kept jewish forever. and he's willing to ethnically cleanse non-jews to keep it like that.

Yes it does. It means they want you dead.

there's a difference between 'i could totes kill you' and machine gunning someone's house.